[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC] Custom tag interface
From: |
Scott James Remnant |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC] Custom tag interface |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Mar 2004 04:04:06 +0000 |
On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 02:55, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
> > This is currently a Request For Comments only, if people like this patch
> > I'll make any necessary changes, write up some documentation for it and
> > mail a proper patch later.
>
> Will these changes support multiple actual compilers for the same
> language, or only aliases for the same compiler? For example, a
> Solaris user may use both GCC and Sun's commercial compiler and it
> would be useful to for the installed libtool to support both.
>
My intent is that in the future, this should certainly be supported;
this patch takes the first step towards doing that. The next one would
be changing the _LT_LANG_*_CONFIG macros to actually *call* AC_PROG_CXX
and the like, rather than using AC_REQUIRE to ensure that they have been
called.
There could probably be some logic like this:
m4_if([$1], _LT_LANG_TAG_CXX,
[AC_REQUIRE(AC_PROG_CXX)],
[AC_PROG_CXX])
So for the automatic/first "LT_LANG(C++)" invocation it'd act like it
does now, for every subsequent one would do all the tests again. Then
you could do something like:
save_CXX=$CXX; CXX="/opt/sfw/bin/gcc"
LT_LANG(C++, GNUCC)
CXX=$save_CXX
save_CXX=$CXX; CXX="/opt/SUNWspro/bin/cc"
LT_LANG(C++, SUNCC)
CXX=$save_CXX
> Also, sometimes compilers support major modes. For example, the same
> compiler front end may support 32-bit and 64-bit compilation. It is
> possible that the compiler behaves sufficiently differently between
> the two modes that it would be useful for libtool to be able to
> support each as a separate tag. Is this possible?
>
Same way:
save_CFLAGS=$CFLAGS; CFLAGS="-m32 $CFLAGS"
LT_LANG(C, C64)
CFLAGS=$save_CFLAGS
save_CFLAGS=$CFLAGS; CFLAGS="-m64 $CFLAGS"
LT_LANG(C, C64)
CFLAGS=$save_CFLAGS
As I said, this isn't directly supported by this patch; but it's
certainly this patch would allow us to do if we chose to go down that
path.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [RFC] Custom tag interface, Albert chin, 2004/03/18
Re: [RFC] Custom tag interface, Gary V . Vaughan, 2004/03/24